How should UK respond?

[Asim Aquil]

Asim, reject Islam. There is no God, Mohamet was a murdering tyrant, and the Koran is a book of fairy tails written by power hungry dimwitted mystics.

BLASPHEMY!!! ;)

we've done the God/No god argument before, but you're yet to prove that Mohammad was a murdering anything. Less than a 1000 people killed in 80 battles for 600 ADs thats lenient even by modern standards.

POWs were sentenced to TEACH in his time.

Theology often has its basis in scientific logic.

[Samudra]

One source tells me that Mohammed permitted the rape of PoW-Wimmens.
Face it - 600 AD - They had their own way.Wont work for today.

[BenRoethig]

BLASPHEMY!!! ;)

we've done the God/No god argument before, but you're yet to prove that Mohammad was a murdering anything. Less than a 1000 people killed in 80 battles for 600 ADs thats lenient even by modern standards.

POWs were sentenced to TEACH in his time.

Theology often has its basis in scientific logic.

I'm backing up Asim here. I may not share his beliefs (I'm Catholic), but I'm not going to sit here while all religions are attacked. I've been down the atheism road myself and I didn't like where it lead me. Religion is not the problem, evil people using it for their cause is. If there was no religion, they'd finds another case to kill for. It's bad wiring upstairs, not God.

[Ray]

There is no doubt that evil people are the cause of all hassles and not religion per se.

Religion should however not exhort the righteousness of violence on mankiind and on people who do are not adherents of that religion.

When such a validity is enshrined in any religion, there are always those who use it to create mayhem and carnage. When it becomes more of a rule (manifestation that is serious, even if by a handful; and others of the religion not taking action against those misuing religion and acting as bystanders) to subjugate others through fear and intimidation, then for others (the remainder world) to take it lying down is surely not the answer!

Or is it?

I also agree that there are many of the religion spawning terrorists who do not condone the violence, but they also do not take cognisable action to quell such miscreants who sully the religion. This then gives the miscreants a belief that they are right and they strengthen their violence.

In short, let the world be aflame!

OK, even if we accept for discussions sake, Iraq is flawed in the rationale for War on Terror, is Afghanistan flawed? How many Moslem countries have contributed to the effort? One may say Pakistan. Maybe. But if so, why are they not letting hot pursuit into NWFP if they can't manage the same? The Pakistan govt may attempt to show some effort, but does not the very fact that US troops are not allowed in or Pakistan not acting as the anvil to the US hammer in such operations, not indicate that the general public of Pakistan are not for this war on terror? Thus, does it not mean that the average Moslem are not supporting the war on terror?

Unless the Islamic countries organise a cognisable resistance to these terrorists, it will always remain a "us (Moslem) versus them (others)" battle and the average Moslem will always feel that the terrorists are right in their war by the Christians against the Moslem.

Think it over.

[Praxus]

BLASPHEMY!!! ;)

we've done the God/No god argument before, but you're yet to prove that Mohammad was a murdering anything. Less than a 1000 people killed in 80 battles for 600 ADs thats lenient even by modern standards.

I never gave any exact numbers. All I said was that he was a murderer and a tyrant. At anyrate, this is an inessential in my argument, look below.

Theology often has its basis in scientific logic.

Reason is man's only means to gain knowledge. Since reason rejects the arbitrary, then it must be in direct contradiction with theology, which preaches that men must have faith (i.e. except the arbitrary on a whim, because some man claimed he was a prophet, or claimed he was a messanger from god, things which are completely unproven).

but I'm not going to sit here while all religions are attacked. I've been down the atheism road myself and I didn't like where it lead me.

Perhaps it had more to do with why you choose atheism then the actual fact that you did?

Religion is not the problem, evil people using it for their cause is. If there was no religion, they'd finds another case to kill for. It's bad wiring upstairs, not God.

Religion preaches evil, and that is the problem.

[Amled]

Religion is not the problem, evil people using it for their cause is....

Yet when evil people are able to persuade others, not evil, that their acts are countenanced by their religion, and can prove it by citing texts from the book that is the core of their faith, then religion does become a large part of the problem.

[Asim Aquil]

I never gave any exact numbers. All I said was that he was a murderer and a tyrant. At anyrate, this is an inessential in my argument, look below.

No court in the world, declares a person a murderer if its established the killing was in self-defence. When the Meccans were coming to invade Madinat, you'd have them bend over?

Now THAT is unreasonable.

Reason is man's only means to gain knowledge. Since reason rejects the arbitrary, then it must be in direct contradiction with theology, which preaches that men must have faith (i.e. except the arbitrary on a whim, because some man claimed he was a prophet, or claimed he was a messanger from god, things which are completely unproven).

and not disproven either. All I said was its logical to believe there was a higher play. That an uneducated man goes to the Caves in Mount Hira and comes down with a text like the Quran.

Didn't we already have this discussion already an year back?

Religion preaches evil, and that is the problem.

Its worked fine for me. But I see how you'd make the easier deduction, given the facts. You can however choose to empower yourself with more knowledge than you already have about what makes evil, in todays world. To accept your argument I'd have to admit that I'm evil. So you can see how I personally would have difficulty with that.

But if so, why are they not letting hot pursuit into NWFP if they can't manage the same? The Pakistan govt may attempt to show some effort, but does not the very fact that US troops are not allowed in or Pakistan not acting as the anvil to the US hammer in such operations, not indicate that the general public of Pakistan are not for this war on terror?

No it means Pakistan is a US ally and not the 51st state. We're by far the country that has produced the highest amount of results in this war on terror. Will the US Army work under the Pakistani chain of command? If not, then armed foreigners with bazookas into a country, is something no one would want.

We don't want NWFP to turn into another Iraq. We have public acceptance till the time we do it ourselves. The day an armed American soldier steps in Pakistani territory, how the entire nation of 150 Million would react is uncertain. It might just be the end of this War as we know it and the beginning of a new one.

[Praxus]

No court in the world, declares a person a murderer if its established the killing was in self-defence. When the Meccans were coming to invade Madinat, you'd have them bend over?

I simply wouldn't care. It's a Stalin vs. Hitler type of thing.

All I said was its logical to believe there was a higher play.

It flys in the face of logic, it is it's antithesis.

That an uneducated man goes to the Caves in Mount Hira and comes down with a text like the Quran.

First one has to prove that the event happened in order for it to be evidence of a God. Then you have to prove that even if it were true that it invariably points to the existance of a god.

Its worked fine for me. But I see how you'd make the easier deduction, given the facts. You can however choose to empower yourself with more knowledge than you already have about what makes evil, in todays world. To accept your argument I'd have to admit that I'm evil. So you can see how I personally would have difficulty with that.

Just because the truth does not vindicate your own position does not mean you should accept a fallacy to make you feel better about yourself.

[Ray]

How far is this correct? It could be self defence!

http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat...mber=293629332

I wonder why did the Meccans attack Madina if there were no reasons.

Funny.

[Ray]

No it means Pakistan is a US ally and not the 51st state.

An ally takes up joint operations and also operates in an ally's territory when needed.

WWII is adequate to explain so or the NATO.

It doesn't mean that one has to become a vassal state.

It is odd if an ally doesn't operate with another ally towards the same goal together and operates independently of each other without transcending the border when in hot pursuit.

[Ray]

The day an armed American soldier steps in Pakistani territory, how the entire nation of 150 Million would react is uncertain. It might just be the end of this War as we know it and the beginning of a new one.

This means that Pakistan is not for the War on Terror?

Then does it mean that 150 million Pakistanis would react contrary to the belief that it is correct of Pakistan to be with President Bush in the War on Terror? Therefore, while Musharraf may say one thing, the Pakistanis say another?

Then it also means that assertions that Pakistan is wholeheartedly with it soul in the War of Terror is all hot air and basically a ploy to play to the Western galleries so that the goodies roll in?

[visioninthedark]

Ray Sb,

this topic was about how the UK should respond to the terrorist attack ... lets not convert it into another Pakistan-bashing topic ...

Thanks

[Amled]

Al-Qaeda’s UK recruits
A network of “extremist recruiters” is circulating on campuses, according to leaked Whitehall documents
From Times On Line July 11th. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/

Below are links to the 4 parts of the leaked document
It’s too extensive to bring here. Informative and fascinating but too extensive!

http://www.times-archive.co.uk/onlin...s/cabinet1.pdf
http://www.times-archive.co.uk/onlin...s/cabinet2.pdf
http://www.times-archive.co.uk/onlin...s/cabinet3.pdf
http://www.times-archive.co.uk/onlin...s/cabinet4.pdf

[Asim Aquil]

I really doubt it. It contradicts his actions when the Muslims took over Mecca. Now he could've taken it out personally on the Meccans!

Why did they attack? Dude, Mohammad was not even supposed to leave Mecca alive. He escaped, when some of his sympathizers informed him of his imminent assasination by the Quraish (Meccans). On top of that, an ally of the Quraishi leader, was killed in an encounter by an ally of Umair (the caliphate, later on)...

Later on when the Meccans had financial problems, every Meccan contributed to some trading item to be sent to Syria. They thought the Muslims might raid this caravan. A letter was sent to the Prophet by Urwa, son of Zubair, telling him that the Quraish are riding towards Madinat with 70 horses.

WWII is adequate to explain so or the NATO.

When WWIII happens we might even side with India. Till then soveriegnty and caution. Americans will not carry out their operations against Pakistani targets with the same caution that Pakistanis would. A foreign force comes in and kills civillians, while arresting/killing terrorists. How would the Americans look like to the Pakistanis?

Then does it mean that 150 million Pakistanis would react contrary to the belief that it is correct of Pakistan to be with President Bush in the War on Terror? Therefore, while Musharraf may say one thing, the Pakistanis say another?

Much like any other country the Pakistani public opinion is dynamic. If the Americans kill some civillians in Pakistan, even if by accident, it would go well for them in the Pakistani public opinion. So its better that the Pakistani army carried out these attacks. Its simple would America allow Pakistani troops on American soil in hot (or cold) pursuit? BB often frequents D.C., we'd love to get our grubby paws on her to repay some of our foreign debt.

You have to respect a nation's sovereignty. When the Americans needed dire logistical support in the war, we didn't shy away from that. To come in guns blazing in the streets of Karachi

I simply wouldn't care. It's a Stalin vs. Hitler type of thing.

No one said a thing about care. Lets put it this way. If I come swingin on you, what'll be your response?

[Asim Aquil]

Ray Sb,

this topic was about how the UK should respond to the terrorist attack ... lets not convert it into another Pakistan-bashing topic ...

Thanks

What? And give up on his agenda?